Mamrim - Chapter 2

When, using one of the principles of exegesis, the Supreme Sanhedrin derived a law through their perception of the matter and adjudicated a case accordingly, and afterwards, another court arose and they perceived another rationale on which basis, they would revoke the previous ruling, they may revoke it and rule according to their perception. This is reflected by Deuteronomy 17:9: "To the judge who will be in that age." This indicates that a person is obligated to follow only the court in his own generation.

The following rules apply when a court issued a decree, instituted an edict, or established a custom and this practice spread throughout the Jewish people and another court arose and sought to nullify the original order and eliminate the original edict, decree, or custom. The later court does not have this authority unless it surpasses the original court in wisdom and in its number of adherents. If it surpasses the original court in wisdom, but not in the number of adherents, or in the number of adherents, but not in wisdom, it cannot nullify its statements. Even if the rationale for which the original court instituted the decree or the edict is nullified, the later court does not have the authority to negate their statements unless they are greater.

How is it possible that the later court will surpass the original court in number? For every Supreme Sanhedrin consists of 71 judges. The intent is the number of sages in the generation who consent and accept the matter stated by the Supreme Sanhedrin without opposing it.

When does the above apply? With regard to matters that were not forbidden to create a safeguard for the words of the Torah, but rather resemble other Torah laws. A different principle applies, by contrast, with regard to matters which the court sought necessary to issue a decree and create a prohibition as a safeguard. If the prohibition spread throughout the Jewish people, another Supreme Sanhedrin does not have the authority to uproot the decree and grant license even if it was of greater stature than the original court.

A court may, however, suspend the application of such decrees temporarily, even if it is of lesser stature than the original court. The rationale is that these decrees should not be considered as more severe than the words of the Torah itself, and any court has the authority to abrogate the words of the Torah as a temporary measure.

What is implied? If a court sees that it is necessary to strengthen the faith and create a safeguard so that the people will not violate Torah law, they may apply beatings and punishments that are not sanctioned by Torah. They may not, however, establish the matter for posterity and say that this is the halachah.

Similarly, if they saw that temporarily it was necessary to nullify a positive commandment or violate a negative commandment in order to bring people at large back to the Jewish faith or to prevent many Jews from transgressing in other matters, they may do what is necessary at that time. To explain by analogy: Just like a doctor may amputate a person's hand or foot so that the person as a whole will live; so, too, at times, the court may rule to temporarily violate some of the commandments so that they will later keep all of them. In this vein, the Sages of the previous generations said: "Desecrate one Sabbath for a person's sake so that he will keep many Sabbaths."

When a court sees it necessary to issue a decree, institute an edict, or establish a custom, they must first contemplate the matter and see whether or not the majority of the community can uphold the practice. We never issue a decree on the community unless the majority of the community can uphold the practice.

If a court issued a decree, thinking that the majority of the community could uphold it and after the decree was issued, the majority of the community raised contentions and the practice did not spread throughout the majority of the community, the decree is nullified. The court cannot compel the people to accept it.

Sages issued a decree and thought that it spread among the entire Jewish people and the situation remained unchanged for many years. After a long duration of time, another court arose and checked throughout the Jewish community and saw that the observance of this decree had not spread throughout the Jewish community, it has the authority to negate the decree even if it is of lesser stature than the original court in wisdom and in number of adherents.

A court has the authority to issue a decree and forbid something which is permitted and have its decree perpetuated for generations to come. Similarly, it has the authority - as a temporary measure - to release the Torah's prohibitions. What then is the meaning of the Scriptural prohibitions Deuteronomy 13:1: "Do not add to it and do not detract from it"?

The intent is that they do not have the authority to add to the words of the Torah or to detract from them, establishing a matter forever as part of Scriptural Law. This applies both to the Written Law and the Oral Law.

What is implied? The Torah states Exodus 23:19: "Do not cook a kid in its mother's milk." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that the Torah forbade both the cooking and eating of milk and meat, whether the meat of a domesticated animal or the meat of a wild beast. The meat of fowl, by contrast, is permitted to be cooked in milk according to Scriptural Law. Now if a court will come and permit partaking of the meat of a wild animal cooked in milk, it is detracting from the Torah. And if it forbids the meat of fowl cooked in milk saying that this is included in "the kid" forbidden by the Scriptural Law, it is adding to the Torah.

If, however, the court says: "The meat of fowl cooked in milk is permitted according to Scriptural Law. We, however, are prohibiting it and publicizing the prohibition as a decree, lest the matter lead to a detriment and people say: 'Eating the meat of fowl cooked in meat is permitted, because it is not explicitly forbidden by the Torah. Similarly, the meat of a wild animal cooked in milk is permitted, because it is also not explicitly forbidden.' "And another may come and say: 'Even the meat of a domesticated animal cooked in milk is permitted with the exception of a goat.' And another will come and say: 'Even the meat of a goat is permitted when cooked in the milk of a cow or a sheep. For the verse mentions only "its mother," i.e., an animal from the same species.' And still another will come and say: 'Even the meat of a goat is permitted when cooked in goat's milk as long the milk is not from the kid's mother, for the verse says: "its mother."' For these reasons, we will forbid all meat cooked in milk, even meat from fowl."

Such an approach is not adding to the Torah. Instead, it is creating safeguards for the Torah. Similar concepts apply in all analogous situations.

Moznaim is the publisher of the Nehardaa Shas, a new, state-of-the-art edition of the Talmud and all major commentaries in 20 volumes. Click here to purchase or email the publisher at sales@moznaim.com